Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'West Mall' started by theiioftx, Apr 15, 2021.
And conservatives got the Barrett in 2020 to replace Ginsburg. Left thinks as retardedly as Aggies.
I'm not sure I'm ready to brag. We threw away both houses of Congress and the presidency basically for nothing.
I don’t wish it, but if a Dem senator with a GOP governor dies between now and July 1 (Montana, GA, WV, NH, etc), all of Biden’s plans go in the toilet.
Cool. Maybe one of them will get struck by lightning.
It’s been an odd year. I wouldn’t bet against it. By the way, you heard it here first. I have not read about this scenario anywhere.
If you can't see a vast chasm in Donald Trump's self adoration and deceit as compared to that of George Herbert Walker Bush... then we probably don't share enough reality to have meaningful discussion.
I am a conservative, have to vote Republican in spite of the party's stupidity, have never liked Trump although I voted for him, but you post is the funniest damn thing I've read on this board in 20+ years.
I wish you had really known George HW Bush. Yes he was better than any Democrat to run for that office since Harry Truman, but that's akin to saying you would prefer Jennifer Anniston to any of the women on the 600 pound fat show.
I don’t want to speak I’ll of manchin or synema. They want to keep their seats. They know they’re in tough states.
Or killed in a BLM riot.
They are, but I actually think they have some integrity. I could be wrong. They could both be hacks who just don't want to lose their seats, but they seem fairly honorable even beyond this issue, which is a very low bar.
Not saying that they're not also principled. I just think that they know that their seat is somewhat tenuous.
It is true that, unlike most of their colleagues, they consistently have to worry about the general election, which of course can make a difference. Honestly, Sinema has surprised me. Like most Democrats in purple-ish states, she ran as a nonpartisan moderate, but unlike most, she actually has shown evidence of it after the election. It's surprising in part, because she used to be a bit of a nut and pretty hard Left, but she was pretty young back then. She has clearly grown up and become a statesman (or whatever non-gendered term we'd use). She's also kinda busty, so she has that going for her as well.
In my view, most of the advocates for court packing are the unprincipled ones. Why? Because they know how dangerous it is, and some have commented on it. However, they fear a primary challenge.
If you like that kind of thing.... and, I do.
Are the same people who held open the Scalia seat also unprincipled?
Dems didn’t have the votes. Votes are the ultimate principle. How many times does the political truth have to be repeated before you get it?
The most cynical of responses. That's the kind of response that someone explaining away the removal of the filibuster would provide - Pubs didn't have the votes.
Bork, Thomas & Kavanaugh...
There is no honor or rules in play. It's ruthless and apparently it's up to the American people to insist that things be done the right way; i.e. The Constitutional Way. But what is that? The Constitution does not stipulate the number of judges to be on the court. We've had nine since 1869.
The court is supposed to be above politics but it's now about as political as it gets, given the personal attacks and attempts to rig the advise and consent process and now the stacking of the court. It's nothing but political and it's hard to imagine anyone thinking otherwise.
She is by far the hottest woman in the Senate, and it's a blowout.
They aren't unprincipled for keeping the seat open, but they are unprincipled for keeping it open and then not keeping the Ginsburg seat open. And to be clear, nobody has a right to a seat on the Court. The real infraction wasn't not giving the seat to Garland. It was denying him the process (a hearing and a vote) while giving it to Barrett. Either both should have gotten the process, or neither should have.
Having said that, you're comparing a shoplifter with a murderer. They're both wrong, but one has done something much more damaging.
And of course, the fundamental flaw is that the Court is far more political and far less academic than it should be. If the Court itself had enough character to follow the law as it's written, it wouldn't matter that much which side got an appointment or how many justices were on the Court. It didn't used to matter anywhere near as much.
It was very principled. The principle is maximizing the power of the party and of the federal government. Rs and Ds consistently work to implement that principle.